Fredrik Andersen

• Andersen, Fredrik; Herikstad, Yngve; Sütterlin, Stefan & Dechsling, Anders (2023). Negotiating Consensus for Diverging Evidence. An Application of the Explanatory Approach to Guidelines for the Treatment of Substance Use Disorders and Addiction. In Zachmann, Karin; Bondio, Mariacarla Gadebusch; Jukola, Saana & Sparschuh, Olga (Ed.), Evidence Contestation: Dealing with Dissent in Knowledge Societies. Routledge. ISSN 9781003273509. p. 167–189.
• Andersen, Fredrik & Dechsling, Anders (2021). Nudging, hva er det og bør vi benytte oss av det? Norsk Tidsskrift for Atferdsanalyse (NTA). ISSN 0809-781X. 48(2).
• Andersen, Fredrik & Rocca, Elena (2020). Underdetermination and evidence-based policy. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences. ISSN 1369-8486. 84. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsc.2020.101335. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Safety assessment of technologies and interventions is often underdetermined by evidence. For example, scientists have collected evidence concerning genetically modified plants for decades. This evidence was used to ground opposing safety protocols for “stacked genetically modified” plants, in which two or more genetically modified plants are combined. Evidence based policy would thus be rendered more effective by an approach that accounts for underdetermination. Douglas (2012) proposes an explanatory approach, based on the criteria of transparency, empirical competence, internal consistency of explanations, and predictive potency. However, sometimes multiple explanations can satisfy these criteria. We propose an additional criterion based on converse abduction, where explanations are selected on the basis of ontological background assumptions as well as by evidence. We then apply our proposed scheme to the case of the regulation of stacked genetically modified plants. We discuss the implications and suggest follow-up work concerning the generalizability of the approach.

• Andersen, Fredrik; Anjum, Rani Lill & Rocca, Elena (2019). Philosophy of Biology: Philosophical bias is the one bias that science cannot avoid. eLIFE. ISSN 2050-084X. doi: 10.7554/eLife.44929. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Scientists seek to eliminate all forms of bias from their research. However, all scientists also make assumptions of a non-empirical nature about topics such as causality, determinism and reductionism when conducting research. Here, we argue that since these 'philosophical biases' cannot be avoided, they need to be debated critically by scientists and philosophers of science.

• Anjum, Rani Lill; Mumford, Stephen D & Andersen, Fredrik (2018). Causation: Causation and quantum mechanics. In Anjum, Rani Lill & Mumford, Stephen D (Ed.), What tends to be : The philosophy of dispositional modality. Routledge. ISSN 978-1-138-541979. p. 64–82.
• Rocca, Elena & Andersen, Fredrik (2017). How biological background assumptions influence scientific risk evaluation of stacked genetically modified plants: an analysis of research hypotheses and argumentations. Life Sciences, Society and Policy. ISSN 2195-7819. 13(11). doi: 10.1186/s40504-017-0057-7. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Scientific risk evaluations are constructed by specific evidence, value judgements and biological background assumptions. The latter are the framework-setting suppositions we apply in order to understand some new phenomenon. That background assumptions co-determine choice of methodology, data interpretation, and choice of relevant evidence is an uncontroversial claim in modern basic science. Furthermore, it is commonly accepted that, unless explicated, disagreements in background assumptions can lead to misunderstanding as well as miscommunication. Here, we extend the discussion on background assumptions from basic science to the debate over genetically modified (GM) plants risk assessment. In this realm, while the different political, social and economic values are often mentioned, the identity and role of background assumptions at play are rarely examined. We use an example from the debate over risk assessment of stacked genetically modified plants (GM stacks), obtained by applying conventional breeding techniques to GM plants. There are two main regulatory practices of GM stacks: (i) regulate as conventional hybrids and (ii) regulate as new GM plants. We analyzed eight papers representative of these positions and found that, in all cases, additional premises are needed to reach the stated conclusions. We suggest that these premises play the role of biological background assumptions and argue that the most effective way toward a unified framework for risk analysis and regulation of GM stacks is by explicating and examining the biological background assumptions of each position. Once explicated, it is possible to either evaluate which background assumptions best reflect contemporary biological knowledge, or to apply Douglas' 'inductive risk' argument.

• Andersen, Fredrik & Jonas Becker, Arenhart (2016). Metaphysics within science: Against radical naturalism. Metaphilosophy. ISSN 0026-1068. 47(2), p. 159–180. doi: 10.1111/meta.12175. Full text in Research Archive
• Andersen, Fredrik; Mathisen, Øyvind & olsen, morten (2004). Utagering og jobbtilfredshet. Diskriminanten. ISSN 0801-0536. 1 og 2, p. 35–42.

View all works in Cristin

• Andersen, Fredrik & Løkke, Jon Arne (2024). Communicating complex causal relations, a simpler approach.
• Andersen, Fredrik & Løkke, Jon Arne (2024). Against Determinism.
• Andersen, Fredrik & Løkke, Jon Arne (2024). Tendens, retning og styrke Et forslag til en mer intuitiv modellering av komplekse årsaksforhold.
• Andersen, Fredrik (2024). Perspektiver på aldring Del 2: Atferdsanalytisk forståelse av aldring og demens.
• Løkke, Jon Arne & Andersen, Fredrik (2024). Veiledning som bevegelse og strømmer: Et prosessfilosofisk perspektiv på veiledning og veiledningens metafysikk eller grunnantakelser og teknikker . Show summary

  Det finnes en nærmest babelsk tilstand i veiledningslitteraturen med ulike perspektiver og grunnantakelser som er mer eller mindre uttalte. Det finnes eksempelvis veiledning med tunge røtter til psykodynamiske teori, veiledning som knytter seg til en atferdsteoretisk modell og nyere «trender» som Motiverende intervjuing som kombinerer eksistensialisme og atferdsanalyse. Vårt lokale eller avgrensede veiledningsteoretiske perspektiv er PALLET slik det er beskrevet av 6 Pettersen og Løkke (2006/2019). PALLET henter inspirasjon fra generell problemløsning, men har teknikker som er relativt arbitrært beskrevet slik at ulike perspektiver og grunnantakelser kan sies å ligge til grunn. Grunnantakelser, eller metafysikk, dreier seg om hva som finnes og hvorfor noe henger sammen. God veiledning kan sies å være preget av danseliknende bevegelser med skifter mellom veileder og den veiledede, og det er snakk om prosesser, interaksjon, sammenvevde kontingenser og funksjoner i strømmer. Vi kan tilnærme oss veiledning ved å analysere teknikkene, de spesifikke teoriene, de mer generelle teoriene og metafysikken. Formålet med innlegget er å gjøre rede for en prosessfilosofisk tilnærming til veiledning. Vi mener at prosessfilosofi har et potensiale til både å belyse grunnlagsproblemer i veiledning og bidra til bedre fremgangsmåter. Vi er med andre ord interessert i veiledningens ontologi og om det er noe å hente i en prosessorientert ontologi og prosessfilosofi når det gjelder teoriutvikling og praksis. Begreper som endring, kreativitet, funksjon, prosesser, kontekster og tilblivelse er sentralt i prosessfilosofi. I tillegg til at grunnantakelsene ofte er uuttalte i veiledning, er det også uklart hvilke mulige grunnantakelser som kan prege veiledning. Vi kontrasterer prosessfilosofi med substansiell filosofi som to mulige sett med grunnantakelser.

• Andersen, Fredrik (2023). Philosophical bias and categorization: what is inclusion, participation and justice?
• Rocca, Elena; Andersen, Fredrik & Anjum, Rani Lill (2023). When decisions must be based on incomplete causal knowledge. Analyzing causality and evidence for health policy.
• Andersen, Fredrik (2023). Diagnoser, algoritmer og grensetilfeller.
• Andersen, Fredrik (2023). Nutrition, malnutrition and psychosocial wellbeing.
• Andersen, Fredrik (2023). Underdetermination, interdisciplinarity, and decision making.
• Andersen, Fredrik & Løkke, Jon Arne (2023). Prosesser og personer. Prosessfilosofi som et bakteppe for kontekstuelle terapiformer.
• Andersen, Fredrik & Løkke, Jon Arne (2023). Den forrykte kjærligheten eller tenkning om den eneste rette: En atferds­analyse.
• Andersen, Fredrik & Løkke, Jon Arne (2023). Funksjonelle analyser og prokrastinering.
• Andersen, Fredrik & Løkke, Jon Arne (2023). Strukturelle forklaringer, funksjonelle forklaringer, substanser, prosesser og kontekst.
• Andersen, Fredrik & Løkke, Jon Arne (2023). Prosesser, tendenser og personer Hva er behavior­ismens underliggende ontologi?
• Dechsling, Anders & Andersen, Fredrik (2023). Nudge nudge, wink wink.
• Løkke, Jon Arne; Orm, Stian; Haagensen, Gunn Elisabeth; Andersen, Fredrik & Strømgren, Børge (2022). Tiltak for å fremme psykologisk fleksibilitet hos personer med autismespekterdiagnoser: En litteraturgjennomgang.
• Løkke, Jon Arne & Andersen, Fredrik (2021). Vernepleierpodden Fagspesial 5+5, fem filosofer og fem psykologer (podcast). [Internet]. Spotify.
• Andersen, Fredrik & Løkke, Jon Arne (2021). En videreutvikling av Sjekklisten med verdiavklaring og verdivekting; innspill fra interessentteori. Vernepleier.no.
• Andersen, Fredrik (2021). Ytringsfrihet og etikk.
• Andersen, Fredrik (2021). Atferdsanalyse og individuell frihet.
• Andersen, Fredrik & Løkke, Jon Arne (2021). Videreutvikling av Sjekklisten og verdiprosesser i hexaflexen med verdiavklaring og verdivekting; innspill fra interessent teori.
• Andersen, Fredrik & Rocca, Elena (2021). Making sense of expert disagreement in the COVID-19 pandemic.
• Andersen, Fredrik & Løkke, Jon Arne (2020). Hører humor hjemme i akademia? Khrono.no. ISSN 1894-8995.
• Andersen, Fredrik (2020). Social media and censorship – tensions over social sustainability.
• Andersen, Fredrik (2020). Idrett, tilhørighet og ensomhet. Hva er idrettsforeningens rolle? .
• Andersen, Fredrik (2020). hvem er eksperter egentlig og burde vi lytte til dem?
• Andersen, Fredrik (2020). Philosophical BIAS: Metafysikk som grunnlag for vitenskapelig uenighet.
• Andersen, Fredrik (2019). har vi fri vilje?
• Andersen, Fredrik (2019). Hvem er eksperter og når skal vi lytte til dem? . Fredriksstad Blad.
• Andersen, Fredrik (2019). Vern, frigjøring og bruk av av egen vilje. [Internet]. eksistenspodden.
• Andersen, Fredrik (2019). Styres vi av fysikkens lover eller av fri vilje? Fredriksstad Blad.
• Andersen, Fredrik & Dechsling, Anders (2019). Nudging, bør vi egentlig drive med det?
• Andersen, Fredrik (2018). Hvor langt kan staten gå for å hjelpe oss å bli bedre borgere?
• Andersen, Fredrik (2018). Er det grenser for ytringsfrihet? .
• Andersen, Fredrik (2018). Bør vi begrense ytringsfriheten? Fredrikstad Blad.
• Anjum, Rani Lill; Rocca, Elena & Andersen, Fredrik (2018). What is Philosophical Bias in Science.
• Andersen, Fredrik (2017). Sannhet og ideologi i postfakta-samfunnet.
• Rocca, Elena & Andersen, Fredrik (2016). Same evidence, different assessment: role of primary suppositions in the scientific discernment of risk.
• Rocca, Elena & Andersen, Fredrik (2013). Of mice and men Do animal models inform us about human conditions?
• Andersen, Fredrik (2013). Physical postulates and primitive metaphysical notions.
• Andersen, Fredrik (2013). Philosophy in physics.
• Andersen, Fredrik (2013). some things must stay, metaphysics within science.
• Andersen, Fredrik (2012). Towards a Unified Metaphysical Framework for Physics. Show summary

  Abstract The last century of physics has given us two main conceptual frameworks. Quantum Mechanics is most commonly seen as presenting a non-local, non-causal universe while Relativity Theory is a local, causal theory with differing concepts of space and time. Attempts at reconciliation have predominantly taken the form of reinterpreting Quantum Mechanics in relativistic terms, by for instance maintaining the relativistic version of the light principle. Since there are unclear parts of Relativity theory (as for instance the heuristic nature of rods and clocks) and others that are unexplained in the theory (for instance the nature of light and the basic constituents of the measuring apparatus), I propose a different approach. By applying relevant parts of Bohr’s philosophy of physics to Relativity Theory we might come closer to a unified metaphysical framework for macro and micro physics.

• Andersen, Fredrik (2011). From phenomenon to science.
• Andersen, Fredrik; Myrstad, Johan Arnt; Anjum, Rani Lill & Mumford, Stephen D (2017). Experience and theory: a defense of the kantian a priori and Kepler’s philosophy of science in light of modern space-time physics. NMBU.

View all works in Cristin